The Town denied Complainant's request for the resumes of the top five (5) individuals who applied for the position of Finance Director and the resume of the individual selected for that position, and the resumes of the top five (5) individuals who applied for the position of Director of Public Works and the resume of the individual selected for that position on the grounds that disclosure would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(b). Rhode Island General Laws § 38-2-2(4)(A)(I)(b) requires the balancing of the public's interest in disclosure against the privacy interests. After reviewing the resumes in camera, and using federal case law for guidance, we concluded that disclosure of the resumes of the two successful candidates would not constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," but that disclosure of the unsuccessful applicant resumes would constitute a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Even the Complainant's correspondences recognized that the unsuccessful applicants maintained a privacy interest. As detailed herein, federal cases is replete with the conclusion that "on balance that disclosure of th[e] identity [of an unsuccessful applicant] would work a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." See Holland v. Central Intelligence Agency, 1992 WL 233820 (D.D.C. 1992). Therefore, we found that the Town violated the APRA when they denied Complainant access to the resumes of the successful applicants, but did not violate the APRA by denying access to the resumes of the unsuccessful applicants.
